| 王志,王兵,王涛,朱军.对比超声与MRI诊断半月板损伤效能:荟萃分析[J].中国医学影像技术,2026,42(3):408~413 |
| 对比超声与MRI诊断半月板损伤效能:荟萃分析 |
| Comparison on efficacy of ultrasound and MRI for diagnosing meniscal injuries: A meta-analysis |
| 投稿时间：2025-09-22 修订日期：2026-02-02 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2026.03.018 |
| 中文关键词: 膝损伤 半月板,胫骨 超声检查 磁共振成像 敏感性与特异性 荟萃分析 |
| 英文关键词:knee injuries menisci,tibial ultrasonography magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity and specificity meta-analysis |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 68 |
| 全文下载次数: 42 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 采用荟萃分析对比超声(US)与MRI诊断半月板损伤的效能。方法 检索Web of Science、PubMed、Embase及Scopus数据库收录的US与MRI诊断半月板损伤相关研究,由2名作者筛选文献并提取相关数据。采用随机效应模型计算合并敏感度及合并特异度及其95%CI,获取综合受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线以及曲线下面积(AUC)。结果 共纳入7篇文献,包含8项独立研究、共564例患者。US诊断半月板损伤的合并敏感度、合并特异度及AUC分别为89.47%[95%CI(84.26%,92.30%)]、87.31%[95%CI(81.28%,91.47%)]及0.913[95%CI(0.879,0.932)],MRI分别为89.45%[95%CI(81.25%,94.31%)]、88.48%[95%CI(82.42%,92.66%)]及0.928[95%CI(0.914,0.952)]。结论 US与MRI诊断半月板损伤效能相当。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the efficacy of ultrasound (US) and MRI for diagnosing meniscal injuries using meta-analysis. Methods Databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched for studies comparing US and MRI for diagnosing meniscal injuries. Two reviewers screened the literature and extracted relative indexes. Pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and the 95%CI were calculated using a random-effects model. The area under the curve (AUC) for the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was obtained. Results Eight independent datasets from 7 studies comprising 564 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and AUC for US was 89.47% (95%CI[84.26%, 92.30%]), 87.31% (95%CI[81.28%, 91.47%]) and 0.913 (95%CI[0.879, 0.932]), respectively, while for MRI was 89.45% (95%CI[81.25%, 94.31%]), 88.48% (95%CI[82.42%, 92.66%]) and 0.928 (95%CI[0.914, 0.952]), respectively. Conclusion US had efficacy comparable to MRI for diagnosing meniscal injuries. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
